US and Indonesian Children's Descriptions of Relational Aggression

71 Pages·2015·2.41 MB·English

Illinois Wesleyan University
DDiiggiittaall CCoommmmoonnss @@ IIWWUU
Honors Projects Psychology
Spring 2000
UU..SS.. aanndd IInnddoonneessiiaann CChhiillddrreenn''ss DDeessccrriippttiioonnss ooff RReellaattiioonnaall
AAggggrreessssiioonn:: GGeennddeerr,, DDeevveellooppmmeenntt aanndd CCuullttuurraall CCoommppaarriissoonnss
Elizabeth A. Jansen '00
Illinois Wesleyan University
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/psych_honproj
Part of the Psychology Commons
Recommended Citation
Jansen '00, Elizabeth A., "U.S. and Indonesian Children's Descriptions of Relational
Aggression: Gender, Development and Cultural Comparisons" (2000). Honors Projects. 81.
https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/psych_honproj/81
This Article is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital
Commons @ IWU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this material in any
way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For
other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights
are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This material
has been accepted for inclusion by faculty at Illinois Wesleyan University. For more information,
please contact [email protected].
©Copyright is owned by the author of this document.
•

Relational Aggression 1
Running Head: U.S. AND INDONESIAN CHILDREN'S DESCRIPTIONS
u.s.
and Indonesian Children's Descriptions of Relational Aggression:

Gender, Developmental, and Cultural Comparisons

Elizabeth A. Jansen

Advisor: Dr. Doran C. French

Spring 2000

Department of Psychology

Illinois Wesleyan University

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for Research Honors at Illinois

Wesleyan University.
•

Relational Aggression 2
Acknowledgements
I want to thank Dr. Doran French for his extensive help with the preparation and revision of this
manuscript. In addition, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Linda Kunce, Dr. Peter Verbeek, and Dr.
Charles Springwood at Illinois Wesleyan University for their assistance serving as thesis committee
members and revising the manuscript. Also, I want to thank Andrea Fosco, Kari Adkins, Elizabeth
Lohse, Kelly Ellis, Alison Lawton, and Amy Dinardo at Illinois Wesleyan University for their work
collecting and coding the data. Similarly, I want to thank Meta Rianasari, Sri Pidada, and Peter Nelwan
at Padjadjaran University and Dr. Doran French at Illinois Wesleyan University for collecting and giving
me permission to use the data that I analyzed as a part of this study.
Relational Aggression 3
Abstract
Previous studies of aggression in childhood have found that boys, as a group, are more
aggressive than girls. The majority of these studies, however, focus only on physical aggression.
Recently several studies have been conducted that differentiate relational aggression from physical
aggression. Relational aggression involves harming others through the purposeful damage to their peer
relationships (i.e., spreading rumors or ostracizing a peer from a group activity). Several studies have
found sex differences in relational aggression, as well as physical aggression. The present study explores
gender, developmental, and cultural differences and similarities in relational, physical, and verbal
aggression in US and Indonesian children and adolescents' free descriptions of disliked peers. As
hypothesized, the results of logistic regressions indicated that males were more likely than females to
describe physical aggressive behavior, while females were more likely than males to describe relationally
aggressive behavior. These results were found across cultures and age groups. This study extends the
research on relational aggression by utilizing a new methodology for cross-cultural research on relational
aggression.
•

Relational Aggression 4
Descriptions of Peers' Relational Aggression in U.S. and Indonesian Children and Adolescents: Gender,
Developmental and Cultural Comparisons
A popular children's nursery rhyme by Mother Goose goes, "What are little girls made of? Sugar
and spice, and everything nice. That's what little girls are made of." This poem suggests that females
may be less aggressive than males, but is that true in the playgrounds and backyards of America and
abroad? One needs to look no further than the realm of Mother Goose nursery rhymes to find a
contrasting viewpoint. "There was a little girl who had a little curl that hung in the middle of her
forehead; when she was good she was very very good, but when she was bad she was horrid." This poem
suggests that girls, too, can be bad, but how are little girls bad? Are they bad in the same way as little
boys? The current study is designed to assess gender differences in aggression. In addition, we will
expand this to look at the extent to which gender differences in indirect aggression are seen in different
cultures and in children and adolescents. Prior to outlining the study, relevant issues in the literature will
be explained. After reviewing basic definitions and typologies of aggression, the concept of relational
aggression will then be explored as this is the major focus of the proposed study. Next, gender,
developmental, and cultural differences in the aggression literature will be reviewed and methodological
issues will be discussed. Finally, the proposed study that will focus on gender, developmental, and
cultural effects on relational aggression among U.S. and Indonesian children and adolescents, will be
described.
Definitions of Aggression
Although aggression has been the topic of much research in both social and developmental
psychology, there is controversy about the definition of aggression. Aggression has been defined
variously as a natural instinct, a behavior that harms another person, and a social label that we apply to
different behaviors depending on our judgments about the meaning ofthose acts (Shaffer, 1994).
The lack ofconsensus about the definition of aggression is due in part to the question of whether
or not intention to do harm constitutes an essential feature of aggression. Some have argued that because
it is difficult to accurately judge others' intentions, aggression should be defined solely on the basis of
•

Relational Aggression 5
the results of the action and references to intended motives should be avoided (Schaffer, 1996). For
example, Arnold Buss (1961) defined aggression as "a response that delivers noxious stimuli to another
organism" (p. 3). More recently, Leonard Eron defined aggression similarly as "an act that injures or
irritates another person" (Brannon, 1996, p. 209). Both of these definitions focus on the behavior or
consequences of aggression and not intentionality.
Other researchers have argued that aggression based solely on the consequences of the actions
is ambiguous because it prohibits distinguishing between aggression and accidental or non-malevolent
administration of noxious stimuli. Based on Buss S or Eron's definitions of aggression, both a dentist's
I
filling a cavity and a person accidentally tripping another person would be considered aggressive acts.
In response to these concerns, other researchers have defined aggression as "any form of behavior
designed to harm or injure another living being" (Shaffer, 1994, p. 327). Note, however, that even
including intentionality does not completely resolve the ambiguities ofthe aggression concept. Brannon
(1996) noticed that even among researchers who include intentionality in their definitions of aggression,
there is no consensus about which behaviors should be included as aggressive. Therefore, the literature
on aggression has been complicated by inconsistencies in definition.
There have been two major approaches to studying aggression. Some researchers have focused
on theory generation and testing, e.g., ethology, psychoanalytic theory, and social learning theory. An
alternative approach has been to develop typologies of aggressive behavior. In the next section, various
typological approaches to aggression will be briefly outlined due to the relevance ofthe typological
approach to the proposed study.
Typological Approach to the Study of Aggression
Largely atheoretical, typological analysis refers to the process of developing classification
schemes that attempt to subdivide types of behavior. Over the years, a number of such typologies have
been proposed for aggression.
•

Relational Aggression 6
One typology of aggression focused on differentiating hostile (reactive) and instrumental
(proactive) aggression. Feshbach (1964), was one of the first to distinguish between these two types of
aggression. According to Feshbach, hostile aggression is aggression that originates from anger, whereas
instrumental aggression is initiated to accomplish a specific goal. Hartup (1974) continued the work on
this typology.
According to Hartup (1974), hostile aggression is defined as acts for which the major goal is to
inflict harm on another person (e.g., tripping someone so that they will fall down and get hurt). In
contrast, instrumental aggression refers to those actions that although aggressive in form and potentially
harmful to another person, are motivated by goal-directed intentions (e.g., pushing another child in an
attempt to get a toy the child was playing with). This classificatory system is based specifically on a
distinction of intentionality ofthe behaviors. In one ofhis studies using this typology, Hartup (1974)
found a decrease in the frequency of instrumental aggression during the four to seven year-old period,
whereas no developmental effects for hostile aggression were found.
Other typologies of aggression have avoided the concept of intentionality. Ethologist W.
McGrew, for example, described agonistic behaviors (which included both aggressive behaviors and
other types ofoppositional behaviors) by categorizing the behaviors themselves and not the motivations
behind them. Some behavior patterns that McGrew coded in agonistic situations includes the following:
beat ("overarm blow with palm side ofthe lightly clenched fist"), object beat ("beat with object held in
hand"), pinch ("thumb and forefinger forcibly opposed with object or part ofbody in between"), punch
("arm is moved rapidly from horizontal position at side, forward 180 degrees in sidearm motion"), open
punch ("punch with hand open, slap"), push ("arms extended forward with wrists flexed, force applied"),
and kick ("leg is flexed then rapidly extended at knee and hip, usually oriented toward person or object")
(McGrew, 1972, p. 70).
One ofthe most frequently used typologies in the study of aggression differentiates between
verbal and physical aggression. Most classification systems used to study childhood aggression have
distinguished between verbal and physical aggression (see Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974, for a review). For
•

Relational Aggression 7
example, ethologists Archer and Westeman (1981), used the categories of verbal and physical aggression
to study gender differences in the aggressive behavior of British schoolchildren.
Another frequently used typology differentiates between direct and indirect aggression.
Although used by many researchers over the years, indirect and direct aggression have been defined in a
number of ways. Buss (1961) was one of the first researchers to make this distinction. According to
Buss (1961 ), direct aggression involves direct confrontation between aggressor and target, while indirect
aggression involves harming other people without confronting them directly, thus, avoiding
counterattack. Indirect aggression could be verbal (i.e. spreading malicious rumors) or physical (stealing
someone's notebook). The indirect aggression subscale on the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory
published in 1957, included such behaviors as spreading gossip, banging on the table, pouting, and
playing practical jokes (Richardson & Green, 1997). Some researchers have suggested that Buss's
definition of indirect aggression was too broad and included behaviors that were not necessarily
aggressive.
Feshbach (1969), one of the first researchers to conduct observational studies of children's
aggressive behavior,.defined indirect aggression somewhat differently than Buss. According to Feshbach
(1969) indirect aggression is "a response which results in pain to a stimulus person through rejecting and
excluding him" (p. 250). Indicators of indirect aggression included the following behaviors: ignoring
(paying no attention to an approach), avoiding (moving away), refusals (denying requests for help or
play), and exclusion (actively rejecting). In contrast to Buss's definition, which included behaviors such
as pounding on the table, Feshbach only included behaviors that have a social target.
Recently, more than fifteen years after the work by Buss and Feshbach, there has been renewed
interest in typological analysis of children's aggression. This has been stimulated by with Crick and her
colleagues' (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Crick, Bigbee, & Howes, 1996) modification ofthe concept of
indirect aggression that has been described and researched by a group of Finnish researchers
(Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992). This led to the
subsequent development ofthe category of relational aggression (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Crick and
•

Relational Aggression 8
colleagues divided aggression into two categories. The first category, relational aggression, focuses on
harming others by purposely damaging their peer relationships and includes behaviors such as spreading
malicious rumors, excluding friends from a play group, and trying to get other children not to play with a
certain peer. All other aggressive behaviors, which do not fall under relational aggression, constitute the
second category of aggression. One reason why this work has received so much attention is because of
the gender differences in aggression that have emerged when distinctions between relational and non­
relational aggression are established. Because of the importance ofthis work for the present study, the
next section will outline Crick's model in detail.
Relational Aggression
Crick and Grotpeter (1995), defined relational aggression as "harming others through purposeful
manipulation and damage of their peer relationships" (p. 711). Crick and her colleagues redefine the
typology of direct and indirect aggression as relational and overt aggression. According to Crick and
Bigbee (1998), "relational aggression harms others through hurtful manipulation of their peer
relationships or friendships, whereas overt aggression harms others through physical damage or the threat
of such damage" (p. 337). Items on Crick and colleagues' peer nomination inventory assessing relational
aggression include the following: "Tells friends they will stop liking them unless friends do what they
say"; "When mad at a person, ignores them or stops talking to them"; and "Tries to keep certain people
from being in their group during an activity or play time" (p. 713).
Like Feshbach's concept of indirect aggression (i.e., "rejecting and excluding") and unlike Buss's
definition of indirect aggression (i.e., "avoiding counterattack"), Crick and Grotpeter's concept of
relational aggression includes some behaviors that directly confront the target and others that avoid
confrontation. Recently, Crick and colleagues have stopped using the term overt aggression (Crick et aI.,
1999). This change in terminology helps to clarify the issue that relational aggression itself can be either
covert (spreading malicious rumors) or overt (purposeful exclusion of someone from a social group).
Instead of the overt versus relational dichotomy, Crick and her colleagues (1999) have contrasted
relational aggression with physical aggression which they define as harming "through damage or threat
•

Relational Aggression 9
of damage to another's physical well-being" and verbal aggression which they describe as threats to
another's physical well being or personal insults (Crick et aI., 1999, p. 77). The key distinction between
relational aggression and both verbal and physical aggression is that relational aggression is the only one
that specifically focuses on damage to relationships. Table 1 provides examples of the terminological
distinctions made by Crick and her colleagues.
No one has clearly defined or labeled the category of aggressive behavior that can be
differentiated from relational aggression. For lack of a better term, I will use the term non-relational
aggression to refer to physical aggression and verbal aggression that is not focused on harming
relationships. In an attempt to be consistent with the terminology used by Crick and her colleagues
(1999) in their recent chapter on relational aggression, in the present study I will use the term verbal
aggression to refer to non-relational verbally aggressive behavior (i.e., direct verbal insults and verbal
threats of physical harm). Relationally aggressive behaviors which are verbal in form (i.e., gossiping)
will be excluded from the category of verbal aggression. It is important to note, however, that much of
the previous research on verbal aggression did not make a distinction between relational and non­
relational forms of verbal aggression. As described by Crick et ai, (1999), however, relational aggression
has consistently emerged as a factor separate from non-relationally aggressive behaviors (both verbal and
non-verbal) during factor analyses of aggression questionnaire items (Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997).
Similar Typological Systems of Aggression
Several researchers have proposed typological systems very similar to those of Crick and her
colleagues. Many of these earlier typological systems influenced the development of Crick and her
colleagues' category of relational aggression. In the late 1980's, a group of Finnish researchers
including Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, and Peltonen (1988), defined indirect aggression as behaviors that
"exploit social relations among peers in order to harm the person at whom the anger is directed"
(Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Peltonen, 1988 p. 409). In 1992, Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, and Osterman
developed a questionnaire to assess indirect aggression called The Direct & Indirect Aggression Scales
(DlAS) (Bjorkqvist, 1994). Included in this measure were questions regarding behaviors such as arguing,